If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

ShamSports updates our salaries

Glad to see Hill's new deal's a flat 8 million per year, should it ever come down to it that's more tradeable down the line than had he gotten raises.

Some notes;
Roy's deal has a 15% trade kicker
Danny's got 200k worth of potential bonuses that are "unlikely"
Lance's last year is fully unguaranteed but becomes guaranteed if he's on the roster after July 15, 2013. Also has 75k worth of potential "unlikely" bonuses.
OJ's last year is unguaranteed, becomes guaranteed if on the roster after August 1, 2014

Re: ShamSports updates our salaries

Thanks for pointing to this. However, there are a couple of comments on the mouseovers for the player names that imply that these data might not be totally trustworthy.

For example, it says that Gerald Green signed a 4 year deal. It also says that Indiana matched Portland's offer letter, when in fact Portland simply dropped their offer once they found out that Indy was going to accept.

Re: ShamSports updates our salaries

Mahinmi and Green are both also flat. I wonder if other teams are doing this for mid-tier type of players under the new CBA. I'm sure it would help make managing the cap a lot easier. If it is a league wide trend I think it would be a good one.

Re: ShamSports updates our salaries

I knew that Hill's contract is terrible as soon as the details for it were coming out, but looking at it like that makes me think even more what was going through our FO's minds when they gave him that contract...

Re: ShamSports updates our salaries

I knew that Hill's contract is terrible as soon as the details for it were coming out, but looking at it like that makes me think even more what was going through our FO's minds when they gave him that contract...

A young starting PG with potential upside who gets along with his teammates well. Yes totally not worth 8 million dollars. Because as we all know everyone and their mother is just clamoring to come to Indiana and play.

Re: ShamSports updates our salaries

I knew that Hill's contract is terrible as soon as the details for it were coming out, but looking at it like that makes me think even more what was going through our FO's minds when they gave him that contract...

Re: ShamSports updates our salaries

He turns 27 in a few months. It's safer to say that he's in his prime than saying that he's a "young rising point guard with potential".
As for his "starter" status, he only got it because our other point guard (which we traded for a backup center..) got injured. You could say he was our starting point guard for the playoffs, but he didn't exactly shine there (13.5/2.3/2.9 with 2 TO/game)

Re: ShamSports updates our salaries

He turns 27 in a few months. It's safer to say that he's in his prime than saying that he's a "young rising point guard with potential".
As for his "starter" status, he only got it because our other point guard (which we traded for a backup center..) got injured. You could say he was our starting point guard for the playoffs, but he didn't exactly shine there (13.5/2.3/2.9 with 2 TO/game)

Yeah, how many players get paid because they get along with their teammates?

D.J Augustin came for 1/$3.5m...

No he was our starting PG, because when he got his chance to play the team was better than with DC. And its not fair to take his playoff numbers. Plenty of guys on our team had their numbers go down. And yes George Hill is young. Hes only been in the league what, 3 or 4 years. Hes still developing as a player both Mentally and physically.'

Not many, but better to have somebody who does than somebody who doesn't. Getting jerks on your team leads to situations like umm the Pacers 4 years ago.

Somebody took a one year deal to get the hell out of Charlotte. Yeah that totally means people are willing to come here to play.

Re: ShamSports updates our salaries

If those salary figures are correct, Scola would have been a very unlikely target even without the timing issues of Hibbert/Hill signing first. Even if the Pacers had gotten him for the same amount the Suns did, that would have left them less than 0.5 million away from the luxury tax (that's also without Ahern, Gaines, and Young). I doubt the Pacers want to get that close and lose all in season flexibility to add a 15th man or make a trade. And of course to win the bid, they would have had to bid even more than the Suns did and thereby get even closer to the tax level.

Brand would have been a possibility to fit in if not for the timing issues.

Overall though, if the Pacers keep two of Gaines, Ahern, and Young, they'll be about 3.3 million away from the tax level. They perhaps could have spent a little more, but they didn't leave a huge amount of money on the table.

Re: ShamSports updates our salaries

"Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

"And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "
Want your own "Just Say No to Kamen" from @mkroeger pic? http://twitpic.com/a3hmca

Re: ShamSports updates our salaries

So we are 2 million from the luxury tax, I thought it was 3, but we didn't have near the room to maneuver people acted like we did. Some people wanted major moves which wasn't in the cards with what we had.

Re: ShamSports updates our salaries

So we are 2 million from the luxury tax, I thought it was 3, but we didn't have near the room to maneuver people acted like we did. Some people wanted major moves which wasn't in the cards with what we had.

We were at $65m before signing the unguaranteed trio of Gaines, Young, and Ahearn. We had a little bit more room.

If those salary figures are correct, Scola would have been a very unlikely target even without the timing issues of Hibbert/Hill signing first. Even if the Pacers had gotten him for the same amount the Suns did, that would have left them less than 0.5 million away from the luxury tax (that's also without Ahern, Gaines, and Young). I doubt the Pacers want to get that close and lose all in season flexibility to add a 15th man or make a trade. And of course to win the bid, they would have had to bid even more than the Suns did and thereby get even closer to the tax level.

Yup. Either Pacers couldn't work the timing (still seems like a BS excuse to me), figured Scola would cost more, or simply decided that keeping flexibility is the best option.

I'm not expecting more than 1 out of Gaines, Young, Ahearn to make the team, and even then he'd be an emergency use player. But I figure we want flexibility in case of injury, etc. We still have the $2.5m room exception to use, and space under the tax to use it.

I knew that Hill's contract is terrible as soon as the details for it were coming out, but looking at it like that makes me think even more what was going through our FO's minds when they gave him that contract...

FWIW, I felt better about Hill's contract after reading Hollinger's report. He's not the best playmaker, true, but he's a low turnover guy, and his shooting, defense, rebounding are all above average. Still a bit too much money - I'd compare him to Arron Afflalo, who makes slightly less.

But I can see where you're coming from. My preference is still to have a true playmaker at PG, with Hill playing SG or even 6th man.

Re: ShamSports updates our salaries

Yes but these are signings we knew we had to make, so you have to leave room for them as well. So while technically the room was there, you couldn't use it for the reason that you knew you needed it.

Well, wait a minute. Including the unguaranteed contracts, we hav like 16 guys with a contract. That means that we had 13 guys under contract before the last 3 guys wer signed. So, technically, we didn't have to add another player. Isn't 13 the minimum you have to carry?

Re: ShamSports updates our salaries

Well, wait a minute. Including the unguaranteed contracts, we hav like 16 guys with a contract. That means that we had 13 guys under contract before the last 3 guys wer signed. So, technically, we didn't have to add another player. Isn't 13 the minimum you have to carry?

Yes, but what's the point if you're already over the cap? Last year we added Barbosa with that roster space. This year we'd just be risking someone taking a player we wanted once someone got hurt with no potential gain from it.

Re: ShamSports updates our salaries

I'd argue that if we had used the money for something else, we wouldn't be making so many camp signings now. Depends on what you think is important I guess.

What money? So you take 1,800,000 (2 camp guys) off and we are still only less than 4 million away from the tax. What type players make that money, that aren't on rookie contracts? Not many that are going to be a difference maker. It also brings you within pennies of the tax which we probably don't want to risk getting so close.

I'm not sure what kind of awesome moves that are worth complaining about that could have been made for that price.

Re: ShamSports updates our salaries

What money? So you take 1,800,000 (2 camp guys) off and we are still only less than 4 million away from the tax. What type players make that money, that aren't on rookie contracts? Not many that are going to be a difference maker. It also brings you within pennies of the tax which we probably don't want to risk getting so close.

I'm not sure what kind of awesome moves that are worth complaining about that could have been made for that price.

i think people generally mean Scola/Brand bids in these situations. 4.6m Scola bid or 2.2m Brand were feasible, tax wise.
Timing/want is the question in those situations rather than tax.